I never come across a company in my life like these cowboys
My husband & I took a mortgage out with them in nov 05 reccomended by a financial advisor.
We missed 2 payments due to loss of work.
Ther original mortgage amount was £96k & was at a discounted rate for 2 years after the 2 years we where free to change lender.
We have been since dec 07 trying to change lender.they have been so slow in sending relevant paper work & redemption figures to our solicitor.
They have even taken us to court for repossesseion when they know we are moving from them.
These are the redemption figures they have sent:
Balance of mortgage £98,542.39 interest due to settlement date £10,938.09
Early settlement charge £5,766.55
Legal cost for litigation £352.51
Final repayment charge £129.50
Total to repay on settlement date 31/07/08 £ 115.729.04
Daily rate £29.18
We now appear in court regularly..once a month.
The above redemption figures have now all changed & the mortgage balance stands at £110k.
What they have done is taken our mortgage payment & paid it off the arrears instead off the mortgage,so in there eyes we now owe more than 12 months payments.
The judge gave them until the next hearing date to explain what rights they had on doing this.
We received a copy of what they had sent to the courts:
"If a customer is in arrears we will take what necessary payment towards any arrears".
"We then take off any interest owing"
"We take the capital off the balance of the loan outstanding"
ALL IN THAT ORDER.
This is a repayment mortgage,we have been advised that we are actually only paying an interest only mortgage,yet all paperwork state repayment.
Court hearing was 18th Nov,guess what ...they did a no show,leaving the judge fuming as to no explanation.
He adjourned it till next available date & ordered them to pay £50 for my husbands loss of earnings for half a day.
Next hearing date is 4th Dec & they must give full explaination why they did not attend.
I could go forever with regards to this company.
Has anyone else been treated unfairly like we have?
I am also with this cowboy company and they are threatening me with repossesion, i am £3000 in arrears, i've just come off the fixed rate and they say my payments are going to be £1000 per month which there is no way i can pay, obviously i am exremely worried especially as i have a special needs son and 2 other children plus christmas round the corner, it doesn't matter how many times i have tried to sort this all out i keep getting told different things from different people in the firm, plus i have been paying the arrears off at £50 per month but my arrears haven't gone down but when questioned they can't give me a staight answer in fact they give different answers every time i ring, i know this needs sorting especially since i am struggling to make januarys payment, but they are impossible to sort things out they literally do not know what they are doing which doesn't help me or my situation sorry for going on but i could really do with some advice.
They took almost £20k Erc from me, I only had a mortgage with them for a year.
I am sure there are a great many unhappy ex customers & current customers of this lot. It occurs to me that times must be very difficult for this company (and the likes of Kensington etc). I think they will all be having difficulties and the current proprietors will be looking to sell up. It could be made very difficult for them if all their unhappy customers launched some sort of class action against them. This would have to be disclosed to any prospective purchasers & might cause great difficulties for them. I am sure that there must be a common thread to the way we have all been treated, something around which we could build a case.
We could have a look at all these companies, get as many complainants as possible and see how we could fund something.
They are very vulnerable right now & as Corporal Jones would say, "they dont like it up 'em"
Although I havent a mortgage with this lot. I have tried to claim back my PPI. It went to court yesterday and the case was adjourned by the judge. SPML took over the company I originally had my loan with. The judge said it is so complicated he would advise I think long and hard about taking up the case again and reissuing the N1 as it would get very expensive. Probably due to all of the t/a companies down the line. What a bunch.
I agree with you Dangermouse, maybe if we all got together,something could be done.
Im awaiting my call from ITN on monday,maybe we should all contact ITN,the bigger the story the better.
SPML are quite good at intimidating customers,lets see how they like being intimidated from the press.
If anyone is interested in airing there side of things to the news let me know & I will pass on your details to Chris the specialist editor at ITN.
I think this will answer your question dangermouse.
It is from an article in todays Times
Louise Cuming, the head of mortgages at moneysupermarket.com, the comparison website, said: “The list of criteria that must be fulfilled before borrowers are even considered means that few will qualify and even fewer will actually be granted assistance due to the fact it is voluntary on behalf of the lenders, who have only signed up ‘in principle'.”
It is also estimated that sub-prime lenders, who are considered to be responsible for approximately half of all repossessions, will not join the scheme.
Ray Boulger, of the mortgage broker John Charcol, said: “Sub-prime lenders will certainly not be signing up to this deal. This scheme has all the hallmarks of a plan that has been cobbled together at the last minute
Iv had some awful problems with SPLM London mortgage. We have now paid them. I am going for the PPI they pu on without us knowing.
If people do lose there houses through the current climate, and they have to either sell or repossed then LMC also get they ERC, which they would'nt have got if the loan/mortgage was aloud to continue and finish as normal. They put so much pressure on us to sell, in the end when the final statement came through we were actually made to pay £12.000 more and this did not include any payments that were outstanding.
It seems that they make people lose ther homes dilibratly so that the can add all the extras on and make extra money.
They make my blood boil. I hope they get there cunupance very soon.
Just to let you know that SPML is the special purpose vehicle company (SPV) behind Lehman Brothers investment bank. As you probably know Lehman's went belly up a few months ago.
The real drive behind the excessive interest rates and the problems you are facing, most likely has more to do with the Lehman Brothers securitisation of your mortgages. Because the SPV has to suck in all the cash it can (which you guys have to stomp up) to pay for the liquidation. The SPV investors want their cash now. That's why the pressure is on you.
These securitisation companies are now in the repossession business (as contrasted with the mortgage business). Thus, they will force you into 'alleged' arrears through excessive charges and then repossess your home. The public need to get wised up to what has really happened to their mortgages and need to understand that what's happening is the result of your mortgages having been securitised.
You will find that SPML is nothing more than a shell company that holds the assets, i.e. your mortgage contracts which is the assets. SPML most likely has no employees and the director's of SPML are most likely just companies, rather than an real person. You can find out exactly who SPML are through the Companies House web-site.
SPML will probably have contracted with a company to do the administration of your mortgages. So whilst you are led to believe that you are receiving letters from SPML, the author of those letters is more likely to be another company that administrates the mortgages on behalf of SPML.
If you really want to know what has happened to your mortgages, and what is really going on behind the scenes, the way to find out is to go to the FSA where the UK Listing Authority public records are held. Get the Prospectus which covers the securitisation of your mortgage. You will then find out exactly what has happened to your mortgages, and just how many financial institutions are really grabbing cash off you. You will be astonished.
For those of you who are interested, the following is a basic outline of a general securitisation structure:
You're right...and did you notice that the 'Type' of business is listed at Companies House as 'Other financial intermediation'. Which means it's a middle man. It's not in the mortgage business. It is an intermediator.
The accounts that were filed to year end 2006, will still give you the flavour of how they are abusing the borrowers. They'll most likely have boasted and bigged themselves up about how much money their striping off the borrowers.
My mortgage is not with SPML, but I have done a lot of research into this issue and the basic abuses perpetrated against mortgage borrowers is generally the same whoever is behind the securitisation. I was definitely being overcharged. That is, being charged interest over and above my legal contractual obligations and the upshot is: they dictate - you pay, or else you get repossessed. It matter not to them, that they are not entitled to the payments they are asking for. The point to them is - you signed, and as such, you are their financial slave.
I'm fighting, but in order to fight it, you've got to know who it is that really driving the show. It's not necessarily the person from whom you get your letters. Your mortgage has been - mortgaged - the entity that mortgaged your mortgage, together with the entity that owns the mortgage on your mortgage, are the entities that are really behind your mortgage.
This may all sound complicated, but it really isn't. It just seems complicated because hitherto, everything has been concealed from you. So shead some light on what's really going on with your mortgage and shed some light on who really owns it, and shed the light on what they've done with your mortgage, then all will be revealed. It's very easy. It's nothing more complicated than plain old greed for money.
To identify which securitisation in which your mortgage was most likely to have been securitised, first look at the listings against the various SPML securitisation. It is most likely that the securitisation that occurred immediately after the date on which you took out your mortgage, will be the securitisation in which your mortgage was securitised. As a general rule of thumb, your mortgage will have been securitised within 3 months of the date on which you signed up your mortgage.
Once you have identified which listings you are interested in, then you have to actually go to the FSA in Canary Wharf, London. (They don't make it easy, but it's worth it).
When you arrive at the building, the FSA have public access computers (which are located just behind the reception desk). You check in at reception and then they let you onto the public access computer system. Then you search for the listing that you are interested in. All documents that have been filed against that listing will be available to you including the Prospectus. Note that I use the generic term 'Prospectus' which is what it is, but you will often find it called things like 'Note Programme Memorandum' or 'Note Issue Supplement' or 'Offering Circular' these are all Prospectuses. It is a document (i.e. Prospectus) that tells the investors what the deal is. You can print out the lot. It takes time to uncover the rot, but the point is, that the information is available to you.
It may not be feasible for you to go to London, so in the meantime as an alternative, find out the company names that you are interested in and just google them. You'll probably turn up quite a bit of information that way. Also, google Lehman brother's. There'll be loads of press announcements which say things like "Lehman announces £1.5 Billion asset backed securities issues" or "Lehmans launches £600 million Residential Mortgage Backed Securities" or SPML sells Mortgage Book to so-and so". Look out for the 'Deal' announcements in the financial press around the 3-month period after you took out your mortgage. The press release will give you clues, or let you know who is involved in the securitisation.
Reading with interest, my ex-partner went mad in 2005 and i had to leave but paid my share of the mortgage to LMC. He didn't, and he also prevented people viewing the place when i wanted to sell so i couldn't win whatever i did - they repossessed (weight of my shoulders i can tell you!).
On the phone their solicitors said there was plenty of equity in the property. It was sold at auction for £187 K. The mortgage was £140K. This left a sum of £47K. Do you know how much I got back from that after the solcitors had finished charging me? £4K! They didn't even have to sort out an estate agent as I had already done that for them, and they chose to continue with the same one.
As I understand it I cannot reclaim their solicitors fees; however, I have SAR'd them and await with interest their break down of fees.
Please get the TV company to contact me by all means.
That's the conclusion that I came to. Having checked out my securitisation repossessions are the real game. In my case for example, WestLB are the investment bank behind the securitisation. WestLB created a 'mortgage' company called Basinghall Finance plc. All Basinghall Finance borrowers are led to belive that Basinghall are the mortgage owner/company. But in truth, Basinghall sold £600 million worth of mortgages to Clavis Securities plc in June 2006. Between June 2006 and December 2007 (18 months), the £600 million pool of mortgages was reduced to £300 million. This means that £300 million worth of mortgage borrowers were either repossessed or forced to re-mortgage with another company during that 18 month period.
Thus, the upshot is: when we take out a mortgage for a 25 year loan, the truth is that the mortgage company have NO INTENTION of letting you have that loan for 25 years. Thus, they either force you to redeem by remortgage (if you can), and if you can't they'll force you into arrears (through overcharging), tell the court that you have defaulted, and then repossess you.
As for the jackieandwayne situation, the entity that sold your house has a legal 'duty of care'. They have to account to you for all the costs and expenses the sale incurred. They are only entitled to charge "reasonable" costs. Anything that is unreasonable is payable back to you.
To find out who exercised the power of sale (i.e. the company who actually sold your house, which was probably an 'agent' that exercised the bank's power of sale), get a copy of the Land Registry Form TR1. The company that signed the sale of the property will be on that TR1. Then Subject access request them.
Infact, if you read the terms and conditions of your mortgage, you will find that at law, that 'agent' is actually your 'agent' that the bank appointed for you. See the sections of the T&C's relating to your "power of attorney" that you granted to the bank when you signed the mortgage contract (even thought the chances are that you didn't even know or didn't realise that you had granted a power of attorney).
Oh final point...when you consider the £44K alleged costs of selling a repossesed house (re the JackieandWayne situation), you will see just how profitable repossessions really are for the mortgage companies. That's just one more reason why repossessions are the real game. They win if they repossess, and they win when they overcharge you. Like I said before, this securitisation game is easy really, it is just about greed for money and us little borrowers are seen as easy pickings.
Class actions are a good idea, but it depends on what you want to achieve. It only takes one case to set the precedent. Once the case is proved in favour of one of the borrowers in a securitisation pool, the same facts and law can be applied for each and every other borrower whose mortgage is in the same pool. It would only take one well prepared case to show that SPML are in fundamental breach of contract. E.g. breach of the borrowers right to the 25 year term just for starters, but more outrageous (and in my view, unlawful), is the whimsical manner in which the interest rates are set and charged in an abuse of discretion under the terms of the mortgage contracts.
But you may find out from the Prospectus as I did, that the mortgage is void and unenforceable in any event and that will really turn the tables on them. My case was due to be heard last week, but, unexpectedly and surprisingly, the trial got cancelled at the last minute. Therefore, I am now waiting for a new trial date to test the legal arguments. Will keep you posted if any precedent gets set.
The real scandal is that usually the company that brings the action against the borrowers and gets a possession order, in truth and in fact, that company, has no legal standing to bring the action and therefore, no legal right to a possession order in the first place.
To give an example of why I say this consider this principle: say you sell your car in January to Mr Bloggs. Then in February, a Mr Smith damages the car that you sold in January. Could you, who sold the car in January, bring an action against Mr Smith for the damage he caused in February? Of course not, dont be stupid, you would correctly cry, because Mr Bloggs bought the car in January, any claim for damages caused to that car in Februrary is a claim that only Mr Bloggs could bring because Mr Bloggs owns the car.
At law, you would be deemed to have 'extinguished' all your legal rights against that car when you sold it in January. This principle is so obvious that nobody would give it a second thought. If you did bring an action against Mr Smith, you would rightly expect the court to tell you to take a hike.
Now consider that same principle in the context of a securitised mortgage. A mortgage contract is an asset in the same manner that a car is an asset, both assets have property rights at law. Remember, also that the company who purports to be your mortgage lender has, in fact, already sold your mortgage to an SPV (but, they have not told you that they sold it!).
Thus, when the mortgage company who claims the legal right to possession of your home asks for that court order, in fact, they have no right to possession because THEY'VE SOLD THE MORTGAGE TO THE SPV! If anyone has the legal right to claim possession of your home, it is only the SPV that has the legal cause in action to bring a claim for possession. The only reason the mortgage companies get away with it, is because (a) they keep it secret from you that they sold your mortgage; and (b) they keep it secret from the court.
Therefore, nobody tells the court (because you don't know, and the mortgage company keep it secret) that the company who brings the claim in fact, has no legal rights to enforce, because it sold its legal rights when it sold the mortgage.
The securitisation process works for the greedy bankers because the borrowers legal rights can be abused by the banks, mortgage companies and the lawyers who act for them. And the borrowers rights can be abused and are abused because the borrowers have no legal representation and nobody fighting for the borrowers rights. You will observe from our own experiences that the bank always talk of their rights and the borrowers obligations but never once mention the borrowers rights and the banks obligations.
Once the borrowers fight back against the illegality and infringement of their legal rights, and assert and enforce their legal rights will this securitisation scandal stop.
If you are interested in following up on these points, I stongly recommend reading a poster written on 12 May 2008 at 20:04 hours by "TaffR". He (or she) also explains the true ownership of mortgages (and therefore the real legal owner) and you will see how the concealment of ownership is really affecting the borrowers legal rights. TaffR is spot on.